2008 Olympic champion -- negative split 1:53.35/1:51.30
2008 Olympic champion -- negative split 1:53.35/1:51.30
Here is Nick Symmonds talking about negative splitting in races overseas. It doesnt work there, they run away
it's not clear to me that he negative splits in that race. it looks it's either even or slightly positive. he probably comes through between 50 and 51. And even then it's a rare race.
Coach432 wrote:
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Your body starts aerobic, then switches to anaerobic when, because of the intensity, the aerobic system can't catch up.
Classic. I feel sorry for the athletes you coach. Ignorant.
Skate wrote:
First lap 5 seconds slower thatn current 400 meter ability.
Second lap 4.5% slower than the first. That is ideal.
So if you have 53.6 second 400 speed, - 1st lap 58.6 and second lap in 61.24 = 1:59.84 It never works out exactly that way of course, but it would be ideal. The better your 400 time, the easier the first 600 will be, but the real race is over the last 200 meters.
49.1 + 51.3 = 1:40.4
What do you mean the real race is over the last 200 meters? By your logic, the only thing that matters at all is your 400 PR. There is no point in even having the 800 as an event.
Almost every high level 800 is run with positive splits. You would think, if it was actually advantageous to use even splits, that there would be some significant examples of people using that to run down those who are running positive splits. But in fact there are virtually none. The famous "examples" are actually cases where people like Wottle or Borza simply slowed down less than everyone else. Or they are the rare cases where the entire field went out slow and it was guaranteed someone would win with an even or negative split.
There is basically no event where you can be more sure of what the opposition's tactics will be than the 800. If someone thought even splits would work, they could spend the whole season preparing physically and mentally to do so. Do you actually believe that either (a) even splits are ideal but none of the best coaches and athletes in the world believe it?; or (b) even splits are ideal, people know it, but NO ONE has successfully figured out how to do it?
Maybe that is possible, but it seems extremely unlikely to me. Don't confuse the person with the MOST positive split not winning with the idea winner did not have positive splits.
Havent read the whole thread but ill just throw in my two cents. The 800 is a very unique event. Someone with a distance background would want to think of it like a distance race, run negative as to gain maximum efficiency. You aim to run negative in a distance race so that you can take advantage of your strength in the first part of the race (using primarily your aerobic system) then starting to resort to your anaerobic system in the end and in the kick go entirely to speed. The problem with using this in the 800 is that it is so short that in that first lap you are already going to start going anaerobic, you just cant run that fast without doing it. So in that last lap you wont be able to use 100% of your speed because you already spent some of it on that first lap. Its like you have to take advantage of your speed in the first lap because in the second lap its not going to be there anyway.
Ghost wrote:
Confused Runner,
listen to me,
High School stats
Soph = 1:58
Junior = 1:51.7
Senior = 1:51.1
College = 1:48 before moving up to 1500
Nearly every PR I ever set in the 800 was with a POSITIVE split. Nearly every runner who ever beat me, also did so with a POSITIVE split.
I've even done a Dave Wottle-esque "Worst-to-First" with POSITIVE splits, not negative,not even, but Positive.
You want to POSITIVE split.
Go out in 58 seconds your next 800. Don't worry about your 200 splits, why are you concerned with those anyway? 58 for your 400, continue pushing, and in the final 150 hold on for dear life.
My guess is, you'll go 58 for opening 400, come back with a 60 and depending on the .tenths. part, you'll run a 1:58 or a 1:59, either way, you'll have a shiny new PR to show for it.
Your Welcome.
~Ghost
Some of you guys are starting to miss the point. "Confused Runner" want to PR. That's it. PR, and go sub-2:00
Read what I've quoted right above. That's all you need to get your sub-2:00.
Some of the counter examples are silly. That video of the 2008 Beijing Olympics is the worst. Not one single person in that race PR'd. That race has no bearing on this conversation. Tactical Olympic race, they were going for Gold, not Pr's or times. That was a SLOW race. There are always "other" ways. If I wanted to get to China, I'd fly. Sure, I could take a boat or even try to swim, but the best way is to take a plane.
Lead off lap should be as close to 58 flat as possible, and if you really are physically able to go sub-2:00, you'll get there by boarding the Flight 58 Seconds plane headed for PRville.
A coach once told me..."Don't blow your load on the first lap and break 60 on the second."
IDIOT! pos split that shiz all the way. I'll break it down by 200ms if you want to breal 2:00
1st 200m all out, 26ish
2nd 200m push push push 29ish
3rd 200m recover and get ready 33ish
4th 200m GET NASSTTYY 28ish AND know we are talkin!!!!!
thats a sure fire way to break 2:00
hey jackass, it's science. Look it up. I feel sorry you probs failed out of college or went to some Christain college where they don't teach science course that are not in the bible. You are a piece of work. you post all the time about this crap and have nothing to back up the garbage you talk. GTFO the boards!
James Tiger Camron wrote:
hey jackass, it's science. Look it up. I feel sorry you probs failed out of college or went to some Christain college where they don't teach science course that are not in the bible. You are a piece of work. you post all the time about this crap and have nothing to back up the garbage you talk. GTFO the boards!
Ohhh, dear.
Yeah. So just try it with an opening lap of 57-58. Once you get rolling down that first backstretch, how will you know if it's going to be a 57-58? You probably won't until you see/hear the split. It usually takes practice to get the 800 just right, to get a sense for how it's supposed to feel at various points in the race in order to have a good chance of holding on for a decent finish. Even with practice and racing experience, that last 100-150 is always a little dicey, and even if you're feeling great with 300 to go, you can never be 100% sure what you'll have in the tank half a lap later. So don't be afraid to race these things and maybe screw it up a few times. That's pretty much the only way to get better at them and figure out how you run them best.
[/quote]Ohhh, dear.[/quote]
I'll get you grammar Nazi's every time. pwned!
long dong silver wrote:
Coach432 wrote:This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Your body starts aerobic, then switches to anaerobic when, because of the intensity, the aerobic system can't catch up.
Classic. I feel sorry for the athletes you coach. Ignorant.
Sorry but people who know are laughing at you. Look it up, you'll find out you are wrong. If you run full out for 45 seconds, it is highly anaerobic, but in an 800m race, after the first 45 seconds, you are running sub-maximally and highly aerobic. As you go on, you slowly start using energy anaerobically - not the other way around. Any top coach knows this. Don't start spewing out false physiology to people who know better.
Herp wrote:
Havent read the whole thread but ill just throw in my two cents. The 800 is a very unique event. Someone with a distance background would want to think of it like a distance race, run negative as to gain maximum efficiency. You aim to run negative in a distance race so that you can take advantage of your strength in the first part of the race (using primarily your aerobic system) then starting to resort to your anaerobic system in the end and in the kick go entirely to speed. The problem with using this in the 800 is that it is so short that in that first lap you are already going to start going anaerobic, you just cant run that fast without doing it. So in that last lap you wont be able to use 100% of your speed because you already spent some of it on that first lap. Its like you have to take advantage of your speed in the first lap because in the second lap its not going to be there anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------
True, but we are talking relatively here. Typically, even in world class races, 800m runners are going out too fast - especially in women's races. Some of the fastest runs have been positive, but relatively even splits. 1988 Olympics, Ereng was last at 200m, 1972 Olympics Wottle was last at the 200m, Borzakovskiy in 2004 or was in 2000, Coe's WR was 49.7/51.5..Cruz's 1:41.77 was quite even.
In theory even is best, but it rarely happens for a number of reasons. David Rudisha's 1:41.09 was not very even, but this makes me think that if he evens his splits out a bit, he'll go faster.
rudishaaaaa wrote:
Go with the negative splits if u see the trend of 800m WRs.
Look at the 800m section in this Science of sport article:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/09/mens-800m-analysis-of-event-and-preview.html
DOES NO ONE NOT READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE BEFORE OPENING THEIR MOUTHS??? THE RESEARCH CLEARLY SHOWS U NEED POSITIVE SPLITS!!!
Does positive splitting work for a HS girl who runs in the 2:25-2:30 range? Or is that too slow (too long of a time running) for positive splits to work?
I haven't read every single post but when it comes to running the 800 I think positive splits are the way to go whether you're male or female.
I ran 2:01 as a high school freshman, 1:59 as a sophmore, 1:57 as a junior, and 1:56 as a senior. I was a walk on at a Pac 10 college and ended up with a personal best of 1:54.
One observation I would like to make based on all my years of racing is that the 800 could really be called "running a fast 400 when you're tired."
What I mean is that most decent runners will be in the mix after one lap...but that's when the race really starts. So from my perspective, run a good first lap, whatever that is for you. Then, as soon as the second lap begins get after it. I don't mean sprint ridiculously. Pick up the pace as if you're running a 400. I bet you will create a gap on some who are still in contention and you will mentally demoralize others.
Remember, you should not be full on sprinting at this point but you will be running steady/hard and feeling fatigued. That's just part of the race.
Before you know it you will have 200 meters left and you will be wondering how in the world you're going to finish up strong.
Throw caution to the wind and just go for it the last 150.
Job well done!
Not sure what you are talking about. My example is a positive split, by a couple of seconds. Those who have a bit more cardio strength will do better to hold their pace in the last 200. 400 speed is very important in determining 800 racing strategy.
coachhonea wrote:
What do you mean the real race is over the last 200 meters? By your logic, the only thing that matters at all is your 400 PR. There is no point in even having the 800 as an event.
Almost every high level 800 is run with positive splits. You would think, if it was actually advantageous to use even splits, that there would be some significant examples of people using that to run down those who are running positive splits. But in fact there are virtually none. The famous "examples" are actually cases where people like Wottle or Borza simply slowed down less than everyone else. Or they are the rare cases where the entire field went out slow and it was guaranteed someone would win with an even or negative split.
There is basically no event where you can be more sure of what the opposition's tactics will be than the 800. If someone thought even splits would work, they could spend the whole season preparing physically and mentally to do so. Do you actually believe that either (a) even splits are ideal but none of the best coaches and athletes in the world believe it?; or (b) even splits are ideal, people know it, but NO ONE has successfully figured out how to do it?
Maybe that is possible, but it seems extremely unlikely to me. Don't confuse the person with the MOST positive split not winning with the idea winner did not have positive splits.